|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Homosexuality and Natural Selection. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3456 days)  Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
Natural selection favors the stronger over the weaker in most cases No, as has been pointed out, NS favors those organisms most fit for their environment. Besides, I don't see how homosexuality fits into a "Strong vs Weak" scenario.
So if homosexuals don't have a prediliction to pass on genes then they are an evolutionary dead end, no? Not if the trait is neutral and naturally reoccuring. Assuming homosexuality is genetic, I would guess that the cause is (as holmes posited) a certain combination of genes that randomly occurs in the population and isn't necessarily "passed on." In this case, NS doesn't affect the trait because it is both neutral and mostly uninheritable (although the combination could occur more often in certain populations and/or families). You also seem to be assuming two things. One: that homosexuals never reproduce or that they can't except through heterosexual sex acts. You seem to either be ignorant of or just forgetting about the many ways this can happen. Some people choose to live a "straight" life, whether it be an "ex-gay" couple, a gay man/lesbian who lives in an area where s/he could be killed for being openly gay, or even those who, like my aunt and uncle, choose to marry a gay or stright friend for the sole purpose of procreation (the marriage is for the perceived benefit to the kids, otherwise they'd just screw). You also have random sperm and ova donation and receiving, plus the many, many gay men/lesbians who donate their sperm/wombs to their gay friends (and some straight men and women donate to them, too!). Two: that pending the end of the species (or the hypothetical island scenario) gay men and lesbians would not just suck it up and have sex in order not to go extinct. It also would not change their nature or even their inclinations. Just because a homosexual has sex with someone of the opposite gender does not mean that their membership is automatically revoked 
As well, to even make this argument that siblings pick up for their gay bro/sis, you'd have to quantify how many homosexuals have any siblings at all. You'd also have to to quantfiy how many heterosexuals have siblings and also find out how fertile they are You would not have to show this at all. That theory would not hinge upon how many fertile siblings each individual homosexual has because all that would need to be shown is that the nieces and nephews of those that do have siblings receive some sort of advantage from the relationship.
I'm not confusing anything. This is very simple logic. If it was just about merely 'feeling good,' just about anything could satisfy some baser appetite, so why go out of one's way to find someone of the same sex if just about feeling good?. I'm not sure how you can see having sex with someone of the same sex entails "going out of one's way?" If you have sexual urges for someone of the same sex there are plenty of people out there who can satisfy you (twice as many if you're bi!  ). You also seem to be equating "feeling good" with sex with anyone. Obviously, it doesn't feel as good to me to have sex with a man as with a woman. Also, some women make me feel "better" than others. Sure, there are some people (of all sexualities) who will fuck pretty much anything that moves and "feel good" but most people are somewhat picky and that's where the different urges come in. Anyways, your original argument was:
it (homosexuals helping siblings pass on genes) still does nothing to explain why they have sexual urges, if most evolutionists claim that the sole reason for sex is to proliferate Explanation of "it" in italics not in original post. "Evolutionists" claim nothing of the sort. The sole mechanism through which sexually reproducing organisms reproduce is heterosexual sex. The sexual urges definitely have a role in this process, but are independent of procreation itself.
If someone claims they are gay they are claiming that they have no sexual desire for the opposite sex. If that desire doesn't exist because of genetics, then by the terms of natural selection, they are the weaker forms of humanity because they will have no desire to perpetuate. I still don't get the whole "weaker" argument. You are equating desire with ability. Do you feel that celibate people are "weaker?" How about asexuals? People who choose not to reproduce for fear of passing on a horrible genetic disease? How about those with the desire, but not the ability? Are they "weak," too?
To overcome this they have to go against their own expressed nature At this stage, there is nothing to "overcome." When the extinction of the species is nigh, I'll let ya know how I feel about having sex with men. I'm sure I'll be more than cooperative (as long as I still get to have a girlfriend  ), but it apparently will be alot to overcome. Edited by Jaderis, : fixed sloppy sentence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3456 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
In terms of pure selection on the genetic level, the rules don't apply. My reason for mentioning it is because the most coveted notariety an organism can achieve, as it pertains to evolution, is survivability and gene selection. So, if nature actually removes the desire of procreation by removing the desire to copulate with members of the opposite sex, isn't that the lowest form nature could derive? I mean, think about it objectively for a moment. For those who are imbued by a meaningless universe and who only find reason in simple terms of survival/death, weak/strong, the homosexual is an evolutionary dead end. I don't see any way of getting around that point. Well, for starters, you can get around that point by recognizing that humans have a cultural and sociological development beyond all that we have seen (or understand, I should say) from the non-human animals. I will grant you that with regards to non-human animals an exclusive non-desire to engage in sexual activity with the opposite sex would most likely make that individual "weaker." Beyond that, your premise that homosexual humans have no desire to procreate simply because they have no desire to "copulate with members of the opposite sex" is completely unsupported. Contrary to the beliefs of some, sex and procreation are not exclusively one and the same.
I find it that one's social acceptance of homosexuality is directly contravened by the naturalistic worldview. The two cannot coexist under both pretenses as they are incompatible. Supposing that you even have the slightest comprehension of what the "naturalistic worldview" entails, how would you suppose that it is incompatible with social acceptance of homosexuals. The ability to pass one's genes on to the next generation holds no moral, societal or ethical significance to "naturalists." We are not trying to make up some excuse for accepting homosexuals because we (and I hope I am not speaking too broadly) do not find anything inherently wrong with them (me).
Riddle me this: If nature removes the desire to pass on their genes then the homosexual will die genetically, right? Yes, if the desire to procreate was completely and in every way expunged from the individual then their particular genes and other unique mutations would not be passed on except through (possibly) their siblings/relatives. However, this doesn't seem to be the case because many homosexuals DO have the desire and the ability to have children.
Its not that they are physically any less fit. I don't suggest that or believe that at all. No one else has suggested that, to my knowledge, on this thread. I have never taken the term "weaker" to have any correlation with my own personal well-being. I don't know why you brought it up.
But if nature stymies ones will to procreate effectively, which, I think, everyone here could agree that so much evolutionary emphasis is on procreation, what does that say about the homosexual? Are they not a dead end, solely from an evolutionary standpoint? Yes, but you are, again, confusing the desire and ability to procreate with the non-desire to have heterosexual sex.
Some have said, "but they can procreate." Yes, I'm aware that they can physically procreate. But if nature gives us predilictions and penchants towards sexual attraction of the same sex, what purpose does it serve to try and override those emotions by procreating with a member of the opposite sex? Because my (and many others') "emotions" towards the same sex do not supplant the desire (whether it be biological, cultural or what have you) to have children. In the past, some have entered into "marriages of convenience," or simply had wanton heterosexual sex in order to have children, but now, we have many technologies that can help us to fulfill that desire (for both homo- and heterosexuals).
Why supplant what nature has done? If homosexaulity is as natural as being born with green eyes, why try to go against the grain? Do you ask this question to people who get colored contacts? Nature, at least for humans, is simply the starting point. Culture, individuality, and all various societal influences play a HUGE part in our development and being.
If nature gives the desire for water by creating thirst, why try and go against that? If nature gives us the desire for food by designing hunger pangs, why go against that nature? But people do this all the time. Have you never heard of fasting? Seriously, though, why are you so concerned about going against nature? I know most "naturalists" are not, so if you are trying to play devil's advocate (WRT to your side) here, it is not working since you are taking up a caricatured version of the opposing side.
Uh-huh, but where does nature fit into this? This doesn't strike you as odd and unnatural? Only as "odd and unnatural" as in-vitro fertilization is. Or sperm or egg donation for heterosexual couples. I really don't see the problem.
Yes, I understand that, but we are speaking about nature and why nature would even develop homosexuality. There is no "why." We can look at the possible effects of it or try to find some correlation to other factors, but there is no "why" when it comes to evolution. It just happens. You are the one trying to equate some kind of higher ramifications with homosexuality.
Nature favors the strong and opposes the weak. There must be some underlying purpose for nature causing the actuality of homosexuality. No. No purpose at all. It happened. If genes are responsible for homosexuality and they never get passed on, then so be it. I certainly don't care. I'm sure "nature" doesn't care, either. However, it just so happens, that it (if it is genetic) seems to be passed on. Therefore, scientists, biological and social, are working on an explanation for HOW, not why.
If there isn't, then it was invented by man as just another thought to satisfy their salacious desires. Yes, yes, of course. If not one, then it has to be the other. No room for any inbetween (besides the fact that you, again, attributed purpose to nature and therefore created a strawman argument).
And what are some of the social ramifications? Couldn't the pederast simply say that it was nature that made him desire children sexually? Can't the zoophile say that nature made him desire animals from another taxon with the same amount of conviction as the homosexual to feel justified in ones' actions? Ahhh...I was wondering when the slippery slope would come into play in this thread. These arguments will invariably lead us into an OT discussion. I recall a few recent threads that deal more directly with the "social ramifications" of homosexuality and I will be happy to discuss these with you there (if they are not still open I will propose a new topic).
Its not an argument at all worth defending, IMO. If homosexuality is natures way of abating the population, but sis is spittin' out the same amount of kids for gay brother, then the exponent growth of the population is the same, in which case, you're still left pondering why nature ever experimented with homosexuality to begin with. It makes no sense. Of course, it makes no sense because I haven't seen anyone propose that homosexuality is "nature's way of abating the population" or that homosexuality is some sort of natural experiment in this thread. Not to say that the argument has never been put forward by anyone, ever (and it seems to be most often put forward by some gays who feel they have to justify their existence somehow in the face of hatred, myself included in my youth), but it doesn't seem to be a strongly held belief among homosexuals (and I should know...I go to all the meetings! ). But, again, no one here has posited that because that would imply that nature has some sort of higher purpose for us.
You misunderstood my point. Many, if not most, of the evo's on EvC take the stance that survivability and procreation are pretty much two facets of life that are the pinnacle of any organism. Where then does homosexuality fit in the picture if, for them, its all about how it 'feels good' or 'feels right' when they are with a member of the same sex? No, you misunderstood my reply to your point. You implied that having sex with someone of the same sex would entail "going out of one's way" and I answered accordingly. I said it really isn't that hard. I said nothing about how my "feeling good" while fucking a woman inhibits me from fucking a man (or getting a sperm donation) in order to procreate.
If nature removes your desire to procreate, i.e., pass on your genes, then are't you an evolutionary dead end? I view people as having more value than being merely sperm receptacles and I see life as a bit more precious than this, but unfortuantely, most evo's believe that life is basically meaningless, and the only real measure of life is how succesful you are by living the longest and passing on the most genes. That, to them, is the measure of success, biologically speaking. Where then does the homosexual fit into those parameters? That is the measure of "success" BIOLOGICALLY. You, again, seem to forget that humans have a life beyond simple biology. Discussing biological and evolutionary "success" in humans is the same as discussing the biological and evolutionary "success" of antelope or algae. You seem to read that view of success as the only way that evolutionary scientists portray all of human existence and that is a false view and you know it (and if you don't then you were sorely lied to by your preacher).
No, I do not, because I don't see the measure of one's self in procreation. That's probably because, one, I'm not an evolutionist, and two, I believe there is a higher purpose than a cosmic accident. Well, I think the "accident" is the miracle. "What are the odds," right? And I view my current life as having purpose. Not just the one after this.
Well, I think its more Malthusian conspiracy than it will be a problem that materializes any time soon. Your reference to Malthus would make more sense if anyone actually believed that homosexuality had anything to do with population rates. Edited by Jaderis, : fixed a couple typos
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3456 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3456 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
The whole tone of the discussion is demeaning by implying there is something wrong or there is a defect. Bullshit! I don't understand. Are you associating a negative connotation to the word "mutation?" Speculating about a possible role of a (speculative) homosexuality gene(s) in natural selection is not demeaning. I think you may have gotten the impression that some people were trying to defend homosexuality by proving some kind of "benefit," implying that there is something wrong. I can see how you might think that, but I assure you that was not the over-arching theme of this debate.
There is no more need of a scientific discussion on homosexuality than there is for people with red hair. Sure there is! Knowing the evolutionary route of a gene or set of genes is highly fascinating to a lot of people. A beneficial aspect of having red hair (and the traits that usually accompany it like pale skin) is that in cold climates where there is not as much sunlight for half of the year the body is able to absorb more sunlight and hence more Vitamin D preventing rickets. See, that wasn't offensive at all and people actually learned something!
What determines who any of us are? Not our sexual desires or choice of partner that's for sure. Do any of us choose to be who we are? I didn't choose my gendre or orientation. I just am and so is everyone else. True and I'm glad you feel that way, however, trying to figure out the genetics and the role or effect that this particular mutation may have has nothing to do with what you just said...well, except for maybe proving that it is natural and not a choice. Not that it matters either way.
As a 'gay' woman maybe your need to be accepted allows this kind of scrutiny.  I doubt anyone here would say that I "feel the need to be acepted" or am at all ashamed by my sexuality by the posts I make. On the contrary. If I was uncomfortable with who I am I would probably be more defensive, jumping on any perceived slight and shouting down any discussion at all about the topic. You will find if you read my posts that I have never hidden my sexuality nor have I grovelled at the feet of those who disagree with me just to fit in.
If I was a person in a same sex relationship (which is all it amounts to)I would say, "UP YOURS" I have done so many times in my life and a couple of times on this board, but only when someone was actually being offensive. I am mature enough to pick my battles well (most of the time), but I DO stand up to trollish offensive comments. I do not, however, consider a discussion about the role of homosexuality in natural selection to be offensive in the slightest. I'm sorry that you do Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given. Edited by Jaderis, : fixed quote "You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3456 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3456 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3456 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3456 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3456 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
It is easy to forget that there are X and Y chromosomes. There can be, apparently, selective pressures on these that are in competition to a degree. Oh, I haven't forgotten about it. Just didn't mention it
For example, there may be an X gene that produces greater female fecundity (I don't know but it seems it could arise and if it positive selection on this seems likely). If this also slightly increased the chances of males carrying that gene on their X being homosexual then, as discussed upthread, there might be a negative selection on it. However, we now have an obvious numbers game. What is the net selection on that gene? This "competition" would also apply to genes that are passed down in sets (the "riders" I mentioned. I don't know the proper term for this). Not to throw any kind of positive or negative connotations into the mix, but the gene(s) for homosexuality could come in tandem with other "beneficial" genes. And as ana pointed out, since homosexuals usually have a sex drive and the ability/desire to reproduce the genes may not be selected against (at least not enough to erase them from the population). In the case of female fecundity, I would have to say that the net gain would be positive overall. I base that on absolutely no evidence, of course, because this is a hypothetical situation, but I think we can safely say that the prevalence of homosexuality and especially of non-reproducing homosexuals is not statistically significant enough to offset the supposed fecundity of their female relatives. And of course, this is all revolving around gay man. We haven't even really discussed as strong of a hypothetical case for lesbians. I don't think much research is out there, tho. Typical "You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3456 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
